Internal Consistency and Self-Feedback in Large Language Models: A Survey

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.14507v3
• Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 09:25:20 GMT
• Title: Internal Consistency and Self-Feedback in Large Language Models: A Survey
• Authors: Xun Liang, Shichao Song, Zifan Zheng, Hanyu Wang, Qingchen Yu, Xunkai Li, Rong-Hua Li, Yi Wang, Zhonghao Wang, Feiyu Xiong, Zhiyu Li,
• Abstract summary: We use a unified perspective of internal consistency, offering explanations for reasoning deficiencies and hallucinations. We introduce an effective theoretical framework capable of mining internal consistency, named Self-Feedback.
• Score: 19.647988281648253
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit deficient reasoning or generate hallucinations. To address these, studies prefixed with "Self-" such as Self-Consistency, Self-Improve, and Self-Refine have been initiated. They share a commonality: involving LLMs evaluating and updating themselves. Nonetheless, these efforts lack a unified perspective on summarization, as existing surveys predominantly focus on categorization. In this paper, we use a unified perspective of internal consistency, offering explanations for reasoning deficiencies and hallucinations. Internal consistency refers to the consistency in expressions among LLMs' latent, decoding, or response layers based on sampling methodologies. Then, we introduce an effective theoretical framework capable of mining internal consistency, named Self-Feedback. This framework consists of two modules: Self-Evaluation and Self-Update. The former captures internal consistency signals, while the latter leverages the signals to enhance either the model's response or the model itself. This framework has been employed in numerous studies. We systematically classify these studies by tasks and lines of work; summarize relevant evaluation methods and benchmarks; and delve into the concern, "Does Self-Feedback Really Work?" We also propose several critical viewpoints, including the "Hourglass Evolution of Internal Consistency", "Consistency Is (Almost) Correctness" hypothesis, and "The Paradox of Latent and Explicit Reasoning". The relevant resources are open-sourced at https://github.com/IAAR-Shanghai/ICSFSurvey.

Related papers

• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Calibrating Reasoning in Language Models with Internal Consistency [18.24350001344488]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in various reasoning tasks. LLMs often generate text with obvious mistakes and contradictions. In this work, we investigate reasoning in LLMs through the lens of internal representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T02:44:12Z)
• Towards a Unified Framework for Evaluating Explanations [0.6138671548064356]
  We argue that explanations serve as mediators between models and stakeholders, whether for intrinsically interpretable models or opaque black-box models. We illustrate these criteria, as well as specific evaluation methods, using examples from an ongoing study of an interpretable neural network for predicting a particular learner behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T21:49:28Z)
• Evaluating Consistency and Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are extensively used today across various sectors, including academia, research, business, and finance. Despite their widespread adoption, these models often produce incorrect and misleading information, exhibiting a tendency to hallucinate. This paper aims to evaluate and compare the consistency and reasoning capabilities of both public and proprietary LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-25T10:03:14Z)
• VALOR-EVAL: Holistic Coverage and Faithfulness Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models [57.43276586087863]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) suffer from hallucination issues, wherein the models generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect outputs. Existing benchmarks are often limited in scope, focusing mainly on object hallucinations. We introduce a multi-dimensional benchmark covering objects, attributes, and relations, with challenging images selected based on associative biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T04:49:22Z)
• HGOT: Hierarchical Graph of Thoughts for Retrieval-Augmented In-Context Learning in Factuality Evaluation [20.178644251662316]
  We introduce the hierarchical graph of thoughts (HGOT) to enhance the retrieval of pertinent passages during in-context learning. The framework employs the divide-and-conquer strategy to break down complex queries into manageable sub-queries. It refines self-consistency majority voting for answer selection, which incorporates the recently proposed citation recall and precision metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T18:41:19Z)
• Self-Alignment for Factuality: Mitigating Hallucinations in LLMs via Self-Evaluation [71.91287418249688]
  Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with factual inaccuracies, even when they hold relevant knowledge. We leverage the self-evaluation capability of an LLM to provide training signals that steer the model towards factuality. We show that the proposed self-alignment approach substantially enhances factual accuracy over Llama family models across three key knowledge-intensive tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T15:52:42Z)
• Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet [78.16697476530994]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a groundbreaking technology with their unparalleled text generation capabilities. Concerns persist regarding the accuracy and appropriateness of their generated content. A contemporary methodology, self-correction, has been proposed as a remedy to these issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T04:56:12Z)
• CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing [139.77117915309023]
  CRITIC allows large language models to validate and amend their own outputs in a manner similar to human interaction with tools. Comprehensive evaluations involving free-form question answering, mathematical program synthesis, and toxicity reduction demonstrate that CRITIC consistently enhances the performance of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T15:19:44Z)
• elBERto: Self-supervised Commonsense Learning for Question Answering [131.51059870970616]
  We propose a Self-supervised Bidirectional Representation Learning of Commonsense framework, which is compatible with off-the-shelf QA model architectures. The framework comprises five self-supervised tasks to force the model to fully exploit the additional training signals from contexts containing rich commonsense. elBERto achieves substantial improvements on out-of-paragraph and no-effect questions where simple lexical similarity comparison does not help.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-17T16:23:45Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.